Repeal the 16th Ammendment and you’re argument about the states not getting money from the Fed’s goes away. The Fed’s shouldn’t be getting the money to begin with.

]]>By: The Powers not Delegatedhttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/14/the-powers-not-delegated/comment-page-1/#comment-254620
Sun, 19 Apr 2009 03:50:33 +0000http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=213#comment-254620[…] http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/…not-delegated/ […]
]]>By: Michael Boldinhttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/14/the-powers-not-delegated/comment-page-1/#comment-249414
Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:38:36 +0000http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=213#comment-249414I think an important point is that power is always liable to be abused. When politicians have too much power, even if good ones are elected, eventually the “bad” ones are going to get in office and use that same power in a completely different way.

That’s why the 10th Amendment was included in the Constitution. The founders felt so strongly about the need to limit the powers of the general government that even those who were accused of wanting a big central government would be considered radical small government supporters today.

The idea is simple – the most difficult issues don’t have a one-size-fits all solution, and are best handled by the people in their states or their local communities.

]]>By: Patrick Truaxhttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/14/the-powers-not-delegated/comment-page-1/#comment-249092
Tue, 17 Feb 2009 04:37:26 +0000http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=213#comment-249092(b). Simply put, the federal government has a responsibility to the people (us, the taxpayers) to ensure that the funds it disperses are well-spent, and further, that the funds are spent for their intended purpose. This is not unreasonable â€” it is thusly similar to how a bank which loans your company money to build a new production plant wants to ensure that a plant is actually built, and moreso, that the plant meets the specifications required for its purpose; otherwise, the bankâ€™s loan will be unrecoverable in the end.

Indeed it is. But if a majority of state citizens don’t agree to, say, stricter carbon emissions that has been enacted by executive order, and would vote against it at the state level if it came up for vote, wouldn’t the 10th protect the state?

a.) the interstate commerce clause — which has been recently broadly interpreted by the Supremes, or

b.) the conditions placed on the states in order to receive federal funds.

Ostensibly, I’m not against (b). Simply put, the federal government has a responsibility to the people (us, the taxpayers) to ensure that the funds it disperses are well-spent, and further, that the funds are spent for their intended purpose. This is not unreasonable — it is thusly similar to how a bank which loans your company money to build a new production plant wants to ensure that a plant is actually built, and moreso, that the plant meets the specifications required for its purpose; otherwise, the bank’s loan will be unrecoverable in the end.

On the other hand, (a) — the interstate commerce clause — has been abused by the federal government. One example is that it is able to continue to determine that possession of marijuana in CA (and other decrim states) because the trafficking there impacts trafficking in other states — affecting “commerce” (albeit not directly) across state lines. That’s hooey on the face of it.

]]>By: Patrick Truaxhttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/14/the-powers-not-delegated/comment-page-1/#comment-249081
Tue, 17 Feb 2009 04:25:03 +0000http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=213#comment-249081Great post!
]]>By: Powers Not Delegated « Artorius Castushttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/14/the-powers-not-delegated/comment-page-1/#comment-249040
Tue, 17 Feb 2009 03:08:26 +0000http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=213#comment-249040[…] Link to the article at Tenth Amendment Center Tagged with: constitution, Tenth Amendment « MSN Careers – 13 Things Not to Share with Your Co-workers – Career Advice Article […]
]]>By: yellowduchttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/14/the-powers-not-delegated/comment-page-1/#comment-248967
Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:29:52 +0000http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=213#comment-248967I’ll see your Tenth Amendment, and raise you The Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). Any State that feels so inclined to exercise their sovereignty against the Federal Government will find itself isolated, broke, and at the mercy of her neighboring states. Michigan is suffering enough right now economically, why would you want to make a bad situation worse?
]]>By: Davidhttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/14/the-powers-not-delegated/comment-page-1/#comment-248955
Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:13:19 +0000http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=213#comment-248955So the government can only legitimately exercise its powers if it is given consent by those that it governs? Great! I hereby revoke my consent (which I never gave in the first place). The government may no longer coerce me into following any of its laws. Finally I am free!

Or did I somehow lose the right to revoke my consent because some people who live in the same area as me vote to choose a representative in the government? Do I still give my consent to the government even if I refuse to vote?